Jump to content
DeadSlash

A political lie about health insurance.

Recommended Posts

Both liberal and conservative candidates keep saying this, and I wanted to clarify something in the off chance anyone gives even 1/3 of one shit about it.

 

I am getting really irritated hearing all of these politicians saying "I will make insurance companies lower their rates!"  <------- or something similar.  It doesn't work like that.  Nobody can "decide" to lower rates.  Rates are determined by math.

The way the process work, in every single state and territory of the United Stated is as follows:

The insurance companies show what they paid out, and using current, agreed upon mortality(death rate) and morbidity (sickness rate) tables determine how much they have to collect to stay solvent (have enough money to pay their claims and stay in business.)  In an over simplified example, if they had 10 customers, and their prior year they paid out $30 in claims, they have to charge each customer at least $3 each. If they tried to charge $2, the state would reject those rates because the math doesn't work.  They would reject a rate of $10 per person, because the math wouldn't justify those rates.

The insurance department of each individual state looks at the math and either approves the rates, or denies the rates as too high or TOO LOW.  Whatever your health insurance premium is, your state has APPROVED this rate as a fair and necessary rate that must be charged in order to prevent the insurance company from becoming insolvent and creating a massive state (or potentially country wide) crisis.  Insurance is unlike other products.  Take something like sneakers, for example: Nike has a fixed (or reasonably static cost) for creating the product and they are free to charge whatever they want for said products.  The final cost is dictated by the market.  Nike finds out how much people will pay, and they charge it.  Insurance companies don't have that option.  A combination of what they paid out last year, and what statistics say they will pay this year decide the number for them.  My example above is over simplified because it's more complex than you have 10 people, you paid $30, so that works out to $3 each.  Morbidity tables are sickness rates, and that is factored in... so statistically, if you have 10 people, 2 will develop diabetes, 2 will get cancer, 1 will get HIV etc. and these things have to be factored in.  People don't really talk about, or think about the other side of it, but states have a very valid concern about rates being too low, and that is actually just as important as rates being too high.  If a carrier goes out of business with claims on the table, it would create a state wide financial crisis from all of the customer left holding the bag on outstanding medical bills.  It could cripple an economy.

 

The bottom line is that it is very disingenuous for a politician to imply that insurance companies are doing their own thing, and that they are the politician that will finally make them "accountable."  Every rate that you have ever paid has been examined, studied and deemed appropriate by the head of your individual states department of insurance.  In other words, let's say you pay $1,400/m for your insurance currently with Humana.  There is no politician that can make them just arbitrarily "lower" that rate.  If you pay $1,400/m for your insurance, and Humana had initially put in a rate for $1,300/m it would have been rejected by your state as insufficient.  That $1,400/m isn't random, or out of the blue.  It's cold hard math. 

 

So to clarify my credentials, I am certified as an insurance expert in 40 states currently, and I don't mean as an agent, I am literally certified as an expert in insurance and permitted to teach it.  In states that have PLE requirement, I am on the short list of people who can sign your certificate that you need to even take the exam.  As a consultant, in the past 2 years, I've been in the headquarters of 3 of the 5 top carriers in the United States, and I fly all around the country educating people on Life and Health insurance including the majority of direct hire agents for said companies.  This post was actually inspired by a class I just did in Dallas. Not one person had any idea that rates came from anywhere.  They all thought it was a case of "They charge whatever they can get."  It's one of the more common "surprises" for people looking to get licensed.  

 

Maybe someone will find this interesting, maybe it should have just been scribbled down in my journal.  Something to think about other than "When can I head all of Hard School!?!?"

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeadSlash said:

Both liberal and conservative candidates keep saying this, and I wanted to clarify something in the off chance anyone gives even 1/3 of one shit about it.

 

I am getting really irritated hearing all of these politicians saying "I will make insurance companies lower their rates!"  <------- or something similar.  It doesn't work like that.  Nobody can "decide" to lower rates.  Rates are determined by math.

The way the process work, in every single state and territory of the United Stated is as follows:

The insurance companies show what they paid out, and using current, agreed upon mortality(death rate) and morbidity (sickness rate) tables determine how much they have to collect to stay solvent (have enough money to pay their claims and stay in business.)  In an over simplified example, if they had 10 customers, and their prior year they paid out $30 in claims, they have to charge each customer at least $3 each. If they tried to charge $2, the state would reject those rates because the math doesn't work.  They would reject a rate of $10 per person, because the math wouldn't justify those rates.

The insurance department of each individual state looks at the math and either approves the rates, or denies the rates as too high or TOO LOW.  Whatever your health insurance premium is, your state has APPROVED this rate as a fair and necessary rate that must be charged in order to prevent the insurance company from becoming insolvent and creating a massive state (or potentially country wide) crisis.  Insurance is unlike other products.  Take something like sneakers, for example: Nike has a fixed (or reasonably static cost) for creating the product and they are free to charge whatever they want for said products.  The final cost is dictated by the market.  Nike finds out how much people will pay, and they charge it.  Insurance companies don't have that option.  A combination of what they paid out last year, and what statistics say they will pay this year decide the number for them.  My example above is over simplified because it's more complex than you have 10 people, you paid $30, so that works out to $3 each.  Morbidity tables are sickness rates, and that is factored in... so statistically, if you have 10 people, 2 will develop diabetes, 2 will get cancer, 1 will get HIV etc. and these things have to be factored in.  People don't really talk about, or think about the other side of it, but states have a very valid concern about rates being too low, and that is actually just as important as rates being too high.  If a carrier goes out of business with claims on the table, it would create a state wide financial crisis from all of the customer left holding the bag on outstanding medical bills.  It could cripple an economy.

 

The bottom line is that it is very disingenuous for a politician to imply that insurance companies are doing their own thing, and that they are the politician that will finally make them "accountable."  Every rate that you have ever paid has been examined, studied and deemed appropriate by the head of your individual states department of insurance.  In other words, let's say you pay $1,400/m for your insurance currently with Humana.  There is no politician that can make them just arbitrarily "lower" that rate.  If you pay $1,400/m for your insurance, and Humana had initially put in a rate for $1,300/m it would have been rejected by your state as insufficient.  That $1,400/m isn't random, or out of the blue.  It's cold hard math. 

 

So to clarify my credentials, I am certified as an insurance expert in 40 states currently, and I don't mean as an agent, I am literally certified as an expert in insurance and permitted to teach it.  In states that have PLE requirement, I am on the short list of people who can sign your certificate that you need to even take the exam.  As a consultant, in the past 2 years, I've been in the headquarters of 3 of the 5 top carriers in the United States, and I fly all around the country educating people on Life and Health insurance including the majority of direct hire agents for said companies.  This post was actually inspired by a class I just did in Dallas. Not one person had any idea that rates came from anywhere.  They all thought it was a case of "They charge whatever they can get."  It's one of the more common "surprises" for people looking to get licensed.  

 

Maybe someone will find this interesting, maybe it should have just been scribbled down in my journal.  Something to think about other than "When can I head all of Hard School!?!?"

If you want to lower insurance rates introduce a single payer public option. The reason insurance in the US is so much higher than any other developed country is because people have no alternative.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazey said:

If you want to lower insurance rates introduce a single payer public option. The reason insurance in the US is so much higher than any other developed country is because people have no alternative.

I have a strong opinion about that too, but it's not quite as cut and dry (imo) as the original topic of this thread.  I will kinda bottom line it though:  In the US, we already have definitive evidence that the government can't run insurance nearly as efficiently as private insurance companies.  We see it with  original Medicare vs. Medicare advantage plans.  Original Medicare is strictly government coverage for people 65 and over.  No drug coverage, no vision, no dental, no out of pocket limit for grandmom and grandpop. It's pretty not great.  Years back, while the government was lamenting how Medicare was running out of money and how the average senior cost (these are made up approximate numbers) 12k a year, private insurance companies were like "we can do it for $8k." and the government said "OK, we'll give you 8k and you are responsible for their health care for a calendar year, you must offer them at a minimum what Original Medicare offers."  It was win/win.  The government was saving like 35% on every senior electing to take private insurance, the insurance company was getting business, and the seniors, for $0 - $59/m were getting plans that covered everything they already had, plus RX coverage, dental, vision and an out of pocket max of like $4,500 (that was back in the day, it is currently around 7k max.)

So a single payer might not be a bad concept, but we need like a whole new government first, because we are terrible at it.  We don't have to guess it will be bad, or assume it will be bad we can literally look at Medicare and VA and see how awful (US) government run insurance would be, because it already is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

I have a strong opinion about that too, but it's not quite as cut and dry (imo) as the original topic of this thread.  I will kinda bottom line it though:  In the US, we already have definitive evidence that the government can't run insurance nearly as efficiently as private insurance companies.  We see it with  original Medicare vs. Medicare advantage plans.  Original Medicare is strictly government coverage for people 65 and over.  No drug coverage, no vision, no dental, no out of pocket limit for grandmom and grandpop. It's pretty not great.  Years back, while the government was lamenting how Medicare was running out of money and how the average senior cost (these are made up approximate numbers) 12k a year, private insurance companies were like "we can do it for $8k." and the government said "OK, we'll give you 8k and you are responsible for their health care for a calendar year, you must offer them at a minimum what Original Medicare offers."  It was win/win.  The government was saving like 35% on every senior electing to take private insurance, the insurance company was getting business, and the seniors, for $0 - $59/m were getting plans that covered everything they already had, plus RX coverage, dental, vision and an out of pocket max of like $4,500 (that was back in the day, it is currently around 7k max.)

So a single payer might not be a bad concept, but we need like a whole new government first, because we are terrible at it.  We don't have to guess it will be bad, or assume it will be bad we can literally look at Medicare and VA and see how awful (US) government run insurance would be, because it already is.  

You're saying privately run Medicare Advantage plans with an out-of-pocket max of $7,000/year are better than the proposed Medicare for All plan with no deductibles, no copays, and no out-of-pocket max?

Get out of here. 

The average American can't come up with $500 in an emergency and you think everyone can afford $7000 if they get hospitalized? 

Edited by TheSeeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

Both liberal and conservative candidates keep saying this, and I wanted to clarify something in the off chance anyone gives even 1/3 of one shit about it.

 

I am getting really irritated hearing all of these politicians saying "I will make insurance companies lower their rates!"  <------- or something similar.  It doesn't work like that.  Nobody can "decide" to lower rates.  Rates are determined by math.

The way the process work, in every single state and territory of the United Stated is as follows:

The insurance companies show what they paid out, and using current, agreed upon mortality(death rate) and morbidity (sickness rate) tables determine how much they have to collect to stay solvent (have enough money to pay their claims and stay in business.)  In an over simplified example, if they had 10 customers, and their prior year they paid out $30 in claims, they have to charge each customer at least $3 each. If they tried to charge $2, the state would reject those rates because the math doesn't work.  They would reject a rate of $10 per person, because the math wouldn't justify those rates.

The insurance department of each individual state looks at the math and either approves the rates, or denies the rates as too high or TOO LOW.  Whatever your health insurance premium is, your state has APPROVED this rate as a fair and necessary rate that must be charged in order to prevent the insurance company from becoming insolvent and creating a massive state (or potentially country wide) crisis.  Insurance is unlike other products.  Take something like sneakers, for example: Nike has a fixed (or reasonably static cost) for creating the product and they are free to charge whatever they want for said products.  The final cost is dictated by the market.  Nike finds out how much people will pay, and they charge it.  Insurance companies don't have that option.  A combination of what they paid out last year, and what statistics say they will pay this year decide the number for them.  My example above is over simplified because it's more complex than you have 10 people, you paid $30, so that works out to $3 each.  Morbidity tables are sickness rates, and that is factored in... so statistically, if you have 10 people, 2 will develop diabetes, 2 will get cancer, 1 will get HIV etc. and these things have to be factored in.  People don't really talk about, or think about the other side of it, but states have a very valid concern about rates being too low, and that is actually just as important as rates being too high.  If a carrier goes out of business with claims on the table, it would create a state wide financial crisis from all of the customer left holding the bag on outstanding medical bills.  It could cripple an economy.

 

The bottom line is that it is very disingenuous for a politician to imply that insurance companies are doing their own thing, and that they are the politician that will finally make them "accountable."  Every rate that you have ever paid has been examined, studied and deemed appropriate by the head of your individual states department of insurance.  In other words, let's say you pay $1,400/m for your insurance currently with Humana.  There is no politician that can make them just arbitrarily "lower" that rate.  If you pay $1,400/m for your insurance, and Humana had initially put in a rate for $1,300/m it would have been rejected by your state as insufficient.  That $1,400/m isn't random, or out of the blue.  It's cold hard math. 

 

So to clarify my credentials, I am certified as an insurance expert in 40 states currently, and I don't mean as an agent, I am literally certified as an expert in insurance and permitted to teach it.  In states that have PLE requirement, I am on the short list of people who can sign your certificate that you need to even take the exam.  As a consultant, in the past 2 years, I've been in the headquarters of 3 of the 5 top carriers in the United States, and I fly all around the country educating people on Life and Health insurance including the majority of direct hire agents for said companies.  This post was actually inspired by a class I just did in Dallas. Not one person had any idea that rates came from anywhere.  They all thought it was a case of "They charge whatever they can get."  It's one of the more common "surprises" for people looking to get licensed.  

 

Maybe someone will find this interesting, maybe it should have just been scribbled down in my journal.  Something to think about other than "When can I head all of Hard School!?!?"

Pretty sure most of the folks trying to lower insurance rates are going after the price of medicines, healthcare costs themselves, which will in turn, eventually lower premiums.

For example, if said pharmaceutical company charges $500 for a medicine that costs them $25 to make, an insurance company can negotiate that price down to $200, etc.

Some already do that to an extent but from my understanding, they want it done more and across the board.

 

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for a bit off topic:

Canadas public medicine arrived at the end of a long saga of struggle. Unified in the prairies by the dream of One Big Union, workers, farmers, intellectuals, mothers, militant labour, union maids, bakeries, the church, faith communities and students all aligned to win demands over the emergent over class. The lineage of struggle, which one could say had its philosophical flame ignited by the need to develop a co-operative crop insurance system, also included rebellions and general strikes that resulted in violence. A diversity of tactics/the St Peter Principle was embraced and in the end it was a Christian Socialist politician, from those same angry prairies, that brought public medicine to Canada.

That was the wild west though.

Today the conversation is so monopolized by the powers that be. We exert comparatively little influence in the modern US power structure. From my vantage point the humanity of the conversation is often lost to a sterile corporate tone. I do feel positive that voters will do the right thing and get medicare for all up and running. :headbang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, soon said:

Sorry for a bit off topic:

Canadas public medicine arrived at the end of a long saga of struggle. Unified in the prairies by the dream of One Big Union, workers, farmers, intellectuals, mothers, militant labour, union maids, bakeries, the church, faith communities and students all aligned to win demands over the emergent over class. The lineage of struggle, which one could say had its philosophical flame ignited by the need to develop a co-operative crop insurance system, also included rebellions and general strikes that resulted in violence. A diversity of tactics/the St Peter Principle was embraced and in the end it was a Christian Socialist politician, from those same angry prairies, that brought public medicine to Canada.

That was the wild west though.

Today the conversation is so monopolized by the powers that be. We exert comparatively little influence in the modern US power structure. From my vantage point the humanity of the conversation is often lost to a sterile corporate tone. I do feel positive that voters will do the right thing and get medicare for all up and running. :headbang:

Medicare for all would cripple the U.S. Economy.   No thanks, I'll keep my insurance.  Medicare should only be for those 65 and older.  People who retire and are on a fixed income shouldn't go bankrupt paying medical bills.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

People who retire and are on a fixed income shouldn't go bankrupt paying medical bills.  

Why should anyone go bankrupt paying medical bills?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

Medicare for all would cripple the U.S. Economy.   No thanks, I'll keep my insurance.  Medicare should only be for those 65 and older.  People who retire and are on a fixed income shouldn't go bankrupt paying medical bills.  

If the current market was suddenly and irresponsibly imposed on by Medicare for all, sure it would cripple the economy. However, that is not the approach that anyone is suggesting. As said earlier in this thread, there would be further regulations on the entire medical market to strike a better balance between profits and accessibility to medical care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

Why should anyone go bankrupt paying medical bills?

People who have jobs get health insurance.  Retirees are on their own to get their own insurance.  It's funny to me that the left is so anti big business but they want to let them off the hook from providing health insurance for employees and instead put more of a burden on taxpayers instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

Nobody can "decide" to lower rates

Yes and no.

As others have pointed out, reducing overall healthcare costs would reduce rates.  

Another way to reduce rates is to have more people insured.  Increase the size of the insurance pool and the average plan drops.  It's not universal, however.  If you're paying a bare-bones plan that covers only catastrophic care with high deductibles, you're probably paying lower rates than someone who is in a much larger pool that covers everyone, including elderly and more sick patients.  

That is what single payer does.  It puts everyone into one insurance pool, ensuring coverage for everyone and reducing rates for people who would be deemed as high-usage healthcare consumers.

Then there are some politicians who want to do away with private insurance and regulate prices of both drug and healthcare providers.  This would certainly reduce healthcare costs and public insurance, but would also increase everyone's taxes.  Bernie Sanders makes no bones that if he were elected President your taxes would go up but you would gain more in net since you wouldn't be paying monthly insurance premiums.  This is what we have in Canada. We don't pay for healthcare insurance, but we do pay higher taxes.  Our costs for treating patients is dramatically lower than what we see south of the border.

5 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

Years back, while the government was lamenting how Medicare was running out of money and how the average senior cost (these are made up approximate numbers) 12k a year, private insurance companies were like "we can do it for $8k." and the government said "OK, we'll give you 8k and you are responsible for their health care for a calendar year, you must offer them at a minimum what Original Medicare offers."  It was win/win.  The government was saving like 35% on every senior electing to take private insurance, the insurance company was getting business, and the seniors, for $0 - $59/m were getting plans that covered everything they already had, plus RX coverage, dental, vision and an out of pocket max of like $4,500 (that was back in the day, it is currently around 7k max.)

What you're describing is essentially how single-payer operates, minus private insurance companies.  Mind you, it was a grossly unfunded policy roll out.  The government could have easily dictated terms to healthcare providers but they allowed private insurance to do that since all the leverage was provided by the government (healthcare providers get $8k - take it or leave it).  Single payer systems in other countries do the same, except they cut out private companies that include a profit margin.  

5 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

So a single payer might not be a bad concept, but we need like a whole new government first, because we are terrible at it.

You're sacrificing the good for the perfect.  No government is going to run without waste or inefficiencies, just like no corporation does either.  

Moreover, as I explained earlier and as have other less than perfect governments accomplished, single-payer systems can work.  The U.S. is not a special case.  Any country that can deliver the level of military superiority and a $700 billion budget that comes with it can manage its own healthcare.  Other countries can and so to can the U.S. if it chose to.  The system will never be perfect, but it doesn't have to be to get better.  

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare was a Godsend for insurance companies. It made sure EVERYONE bought insurance. It had nothing to do with affordable healthcare, it made sure the insurance company got paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

Obamacare was a Godsend for insurance companies. It made sure EVERYONE bought insurance. It had nothing to do with affordable healthcare, it made sure the insurance company got paid.

Depends who you are.  If you were someone who only bought catastrophic insurance or a "Cadillac plan," you likely paid more with the implementation of Obamacare.

If you were someone who couldn't get insurance or paid sky-high premiums because of pre-existing conditions, you most likely paid less.

And if it was such a "godsend" to insurance companies, why do few actually make money within the ACA exchanges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, downzy said:

Depends who you are.  If you were someone who only bought catastrophic insurance or a "Cadillac plan," you likely paid more with the implementation of Obamacare.

If you were someone who couldn't get insurance or paid sky-high premiums because of pre-existing conditions, you most likely paid less.

I can see that. My issue, as I said in the political thread is I don't like the Government does nothing to lower healthcare costs. It just made sure you bought insurance. The cost is still to high. Who can afford a 2-3-4 thousand dollar deductible? It's letting Hospitals and others continue to charge whatever they want because everyone has insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

I can see that. My issue, as I said in the political thread is I don't like the Government does nothing to lower healthcare costs. It just made sure you bought insurance. The cost is still to high. Who can afford a 2-3-4 thousand dollar deductible? It's letting Hospitals and others continue to charge whatever they want because everyone has insurance.

Except that's not true either.

Why is that those who know very little about the ACA are the ones who most often criticize it on false premises?  

The ACA included numerous provisions to lower healthcare costs:

https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-costs/

Between 1990 and 2008, healthcare spending averaged 7.8 percent per year.  By the time Obamacare was fully implemented in 2014 and 2015, increases dropped to 5.3 and 5.7 percent respectively.

The ACA heavily emphasized preventive healthcare, which when made a priority, helps to drastically reduce overall healthcare expenditures.  Solving a small healthcare issue today versus a larger one down the road is considerably cheaper.

Prior to the ACA, hospitals and doctors were paid on every test and procedure they issued.  Following the passage of the ACA, payments to healthcare providers are based more on how the patient becomes.  This resulted in doctors, hospitals and pharmacists to work together for a more comprehensive approach, overseen by Accountable Care Organizations.  If you spend any time researching ACOs you'll know they've made some very impressive gains in improving people's lives and reducing overall healthcare costs.

For a full run down on how the ACA was set up to contain healthcare costs, download this pdf.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Did the ACA succeed in every respect?  No.  It's still a market-based healthcare policy that relies heavily on the private insurance market.  

The free market for healthcare services is not the path to reducing healthcare costs.  Knowledge of basic economic concepts tells us that a product or service with inelastic supply will not produce affordable prices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swampfox said:

People who have jobs get health insurance.  Retirees are on their own to get their own insurance.  It's funny to me that the left is so anti big business but they want to let them off the hook from providing health insurance for employees and instead put more of a burden on taxpayers instead.

Maybe we could take a few trillion away from the Forever War and taxpayers wouldn't have to pay a dime

Oh wait, that would be too easy

Employers use health care as leverage against their employees - some blue states remedied that with the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, but in a lot of states your employer can still hold your healthcare over your head. No one should be chained to a job because they're afraid of losing their healthcare.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and also, not all people with jobs have coverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, soon said:

Yes, and also, not all people with jobs have coverage.

Why do you think Walmart and Amazon pay people minimum wage, restrict their hours, and let the government subsidize their employees with health insurance/food stamps?

Corporations are the biggest welfare queens

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

Why do you think Walmart and Amazon pay people minimum wage, restrict their hours, and let the government subsidize their employees with health insurance/food stamps?

Corporations are the biggest welfare queens

 

Companies offer benefits like health insurance to attract and retain good employees.  Sorry but any idiot can stock shelves or load trucks at fulfillment centers.  Those jobs are easily filled by low skilled workers so jobs like those typically don't come with benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

Companies offer benefits like health insurance to attract and retain good employees.  Sorry but any idiot can stock shelves or load trucks at fulfillment centers.  Those jobs are easily filled by low skilled workers so jobs like those typically don't come with benefits.

And the people who do them are disposable and  shouldn’t have healthcare?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dazey said:

And the people who do them are disposable and  shouldn’t have healthcare?

I wouldn't call them disposable but I don't think everyone should be entitled to healthcare either.  The more handouts are given to people the closer we will be to becoming Socialists.  How many people would push themselves to do well in school or apply themselves at work if everybody had a right to healthcare?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

The more handouts are given to people the closer we will be to becoming Socialists

Seriously?  Have you taken a look at every developed country?  Most have offered every citizen healthcare in one form or another for 50-70 years. Do any of them seem like socialist hell holes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Swampfox said:

I wouldn't call them disposable but I don't think everyone should be entitled to healthcare either.  The more handouts are given to people the closer we will be to becoming Socialists.  How many people would push themselves to do well in school or apply themselves at work if everybody had a right to healthcare?  

That's very harsh, especially if you're talking about American citizens. Everybody deserves healthcare. I don't agree with it being free for some and others have to pay (referring  to illegals) of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Dazey said:

And the people who do them are disposable and  shouldn’t have healthcare?

Sure they should be able to get healthcare. 

Its crystal clear that the government has no business in healthcare. The problem with healthcare in the US is that it’s been heavily regulated at the federal and state level for decades. The problem with healthcare is that because you breathe you feel you’re entitled to someone else’s labor for the price you (government) deem necessary. 

You can look at other countries examples and stare longingly out the window wishing America could/would just follow suit but I’m not convinced that there’s one single thing the government can do better than the private sector. Can anyone name a country with a higher population than the United States where single payer is better than what the private sector provides?

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Download said:

You can look at other countries examples and stare longingly out the window wishing America could/would just follow suit but I’m not convinced that there’s one single thing the government can do better than the private sector. 

The entire point of the private sector is to extract profit at all cost

Without regulation we would have $10/month health care plans with $10,000 deductibles. That's optimal for the One Percent, but what about the rest of America?

If Americans had no medical debt and no student loan debt, they would be able to spend more. Wouldn't that help the free market?

It's almost like our bought and paid politicians on both sides want to keep the racket going so they can keep profiting from it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×